I put this in the Balance Committee thread, but it deserves its own.

Separating the "Balance Committee" into 2 distinct groups, since it is currently serving two separate roles.


Group 1 - The Design Balance Committee.
This would cover the Balance Committee's original purpose. They would be there to make sure character designs are "balanced" within the game. Or rather, making sure no piece puts the game out of balance. This is very important and necessary, and deserves its own focus. From the first post from the thread "Balance Committee Suggestions for the 2022 Season"; *CotG 27 Admiral Daala , *ATTA 20 Jabba Desilijic Tiure, *LTA 32 Bib Fortuna, Majordomo, *SHA 35 Mira of Nar Shaddaa, and *CotG 60 Warrior Caste Subcommander would all be topics for their docket. I think there could be one or two others, but the list was fairly complete.

Group 2 - The Gameplay Balance Committee.
Very important decisions related to this matter have been handled by the balance committee, but the community would be better served having a committee with it's focus solely on those matters. Anything outside of specific character design balance issues related to gameplay would fall under their purview. From the first post from the thread "Balance Committee Suggestions for the 2022 Season"; *Limited reinforcement pool, *Stacking of Save modifiers , and *General Tournament Play and would all be topics for their docket. This list is of course woefully short, several topics that have have major discussion completely missing from this list. Whether by intent or not, this proves that these topics are not being given the weight and consideration they deserve. "General tournament play" is a overly generic catch-all that needs to be delineated out. Many more topics that need to be addressed are already listed in this thread and others. Changing to 5-3-1 Scoring, Gambit not scored for either player if both players have qualifying pieces in gambit, stacking of damage boosts, Games not ending before time when there are pieces left that can do damage for both players, are all very important topics that were not listed, proving that fair weight is not being given to them. There were 4 page, 5 page, and 6 page threads devoted to these topics, and they aren't even listed in the initial post there? This alone speaks to the need of a separate and independent Gameplay Balance Committee.



Separating into 2 distinct groups serves 2 purposes.
1. It gives more specific focus to each unique category.
2. It "Balances" the power into 2 groups, so that one group does not make all decisions alone for our community.


To be clear, I don't think anyone on the balance committee is trying to be the all-powerful arbiters of our game. That doesn't mean that it's still not best for the game to have 2 separate groups.

I think the best course of action would be to split the current members of the Balance Committee in half, the members themselves voting for who they think would be best in each group. In other words, instead of volunteering, their peers should be the ones to say where their strength lies. Then each group can add a few members through the same voting method we've had in the past.

Ok, well since this is a discussion thread, I encourage you to explain why. Just saying “ I don’t think it’s the right way to go“, isn’t really very helpful. What is the way to go, and why? Why do you think this change would be detrimental to our game? Why is the system we have the best solution? Please give some sort of in depth analysis beyond the one sentence you wrote that is related to this thread.



Well, none of this is really what this thread is about, but I do encourage you to go back and read through them. Many players voice their concerns.

I also encourage you to go to those specific threads and give more details as to why you think these changes would be bad for the game.

maybe a committee to organize the committees?

I know I'm not helpful at all

I don't fully know how things work, but I love the game and for whatever it is worth I think the balance committee has done a great job.

I am not really involved with that stuff so I don't have a dog in the fight. Just saying the game is great, Whatever is being done is great. Two old sayings I use on my mini farm.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." And "too many cooks spoil the broth". That's my 2 cents.

Tim, the reason I don't feel it is a good idea is that I think there are already enough committees and it would only muddy the waters and things may get missed due to lack of communication between the different commitees. I think it is too much micro management of the project. Just my opinion but that is what you wanted right.


Additionally, I never said you were the only one to weigh in on tournament scoring/ gambit change. In fact quite the opossite as there were lengthy discussions with a lot of different opinions in the threads you mentioned. I merely stated that I don't see anyone else continuing to bring the issue to table. Maybe that is just because others are waiting for the BBC to address or maybe it just isn't as big a problem in the minds of others as it is to you personally. Honestly I don't know and can't speak to everyone else's thought process. I know I even engaged in the discussion on some of those threads, but it is a difficult topic and as I recall there wasn't any one easy solution that the vast majority seemed to really get behind and in that circumstance I think it may just be best to table the issue until a clear consensus is reached. That also allows the BC to concentrate on some of the other perhaps more urgent issues. I feel like maybe you took my comments as a personal attack and if so I apologize as that was not my intent and hopefully this explains my position a little better.

This was your original post. Then Timmerb, not getting the support he wanted, got mad and lashed out. You have no reason to be apologetic or to make any statement of your intentions. He just straight up took it as an attack and went with it... To be honest, you would be well within your rights to be offended.



It would be unwise to split up because there just isn't enough time for a few people to determine things. At this point you need larger committees to ensure checks and balances. Timmerb just steam rolls over everyone by having the most time to post things and has the most aggressive tone. it would just put more power in a few people's hands. Balance Committee has to keep balance, hard to do with a tiny group of people pulling their small collective experience. balance Committee should have a broad range of players that like all different things that actually value game play.

What is a pandy player?

In my house growing up pandy were mashed potatoes

That one actually took me a second as well. Perhaps there should have been a comma in between Pandy and player.

(Pandemic)

I do think that these tournaments are great opportunities to test out some of the topics on the BC's table to see how they play out in an actual tournament.

After August's (Vset 22 focus) Sunday tournament, I will make an effort to implement various ideas to see how things get impacted. Stay tuned for that.